Warner v. Cate et al

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/18/2013. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
EARL WARNER,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-01146-MJS (PC)

10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
12
v.

(ECF No. 8)

13
14

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

Plaintiff Earl Warner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action filed July 12, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No.

20

1.) Plaintiff consented to extend magistrate judge jurisdiction to all matters and for all

21

purposes. (Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 5.)

22

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on February 28, 2013 for

23

failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later

24

than April 2, 2013. (ECF No. 8.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing an

25

amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.

26

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

27

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

28

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
1

1

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose

2

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v. Housing

3

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s

4

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

5

rules. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

6

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

7

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

8

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

9

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order requiring that he file an amended

10
11

complaint by not later than April 2, 2013.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show

14

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure

15

to comply with the Court’s February 28, 2013 Order, or file an amended

16

complaint; and
2.

17

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action shall

18

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to

19

prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
ci4d6

April 18, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2